Tuned In

Glee Photo Flap: Lea Michele Is Not Actually Rachel Berry

Our friends at the Parents Television Council have lodged a complaint about a racy photo spread in GQ featuring Glee stars Dianna Agron, Lea Michele and Cory Monteith in which, in a nutshell, Monteith plays the drums while Agron and Michele wear skimpy outfits and grind up against things. The PTC said the feature “borders on pedophilia” (a pretty broad border, seeing as how—in the grand tradition of high-school-series casting—Agron and Michele are both 24 and Monteith a creaky 28). Even Katie Couric has felt compelled to weigh in, commenting in her online video notebook that “these very adult photos of young women who perform in a family show seem un-Glee-like.”

My take? Well, yeah, number one: Lea Michele, put some freaking pants on. The spread—um, so to speak—seems like a desperate attempt to sex up her image in particular, and it’s a typical example of young women in entertainment being expected to skank it up for the cameras (while Monteith remains chastely clothed). But as for the shoot being out of character and beyond the pale—Katie, are you sure you watch Glee?

For starters, if your child is too young to understand the difference between a fictional character and the actor or actress who plays that character, I would submit that your child is too young to be reading the men’s magazine GQ. [Update: Or, for that matter, watching Glee.]

But leaving that aside, what we have here is the classic argument over whether entertainers who appeal to teens (or tweens, or younger kids) have a responsibility to their audience beyond their entertainments. Another classic example was Miley Cyrus’ sexy Annie Leibovitz photos. There, at least, there was an argument about context: Cyrus was the star of Hannah Montana, a wholesome show aimed at kids, in which she played a character (“Miley,” a pop singer) whose identity was intentionally blurred with her own.

I have a hard time seeing the argument, though, that Glee is anywhere near a similar example. For starters, the stars are clearly actors playing characters whose identities are entirely separate. [Update: To be fair, the photo shoot plays on their characters with its naughty-schoolgirl getups and setting, but again see fiction/reality distinction, above. Also: any "sexy pirate wenches" you see this Halloween? Not actually pirates.] But Glee is also entirely different from a show like Hannah Montana in its themes. And I think the issue behind critiques like Couric’s is that there’s a disconnect between the show some parents want Glee to be and the show that Glee actually is.

Is Glee a “family show,” like Couric says it is? Well, if families watch it together, then I suppose QED. But in the sense that it’s innocent and unsexualized? We do all remember, don’t we, that Agron’s character Quinn got pregnant and had a baby last season? That the last episode included, among other things, a character losing his virginity and a reference to “scissoring”? I’m not going to dispute that kids under 18 watch Glee and that their parents watch it with them, but that doesn’t change what it is: a TV show very much about sex and its consequences, emotional and practical.

The PTC, at least, seems to get this, because its full statement about the GQ photos indicates that the root of its objection is that it doesn’t much care for Glee at all, period: “Parents need to be on guard as we expect the show to push the envelope even further. Unfortunately, it seems ‘Glee’ is only masquerading as family show and is far from appropriate for young viewers.”

Which is the group’s prerogative, but it also means that its statement here is only masquerading as concern about the photos; it’s really about a show that it doesn’t want parents choosing to let their own young viewers watch.

Related Topics: glee, katie couric, parents television council, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Entertainment

    IFC Films

    Kerouac's On the Road Comes to Cannes: Where's the Beat?

    Walter Salles’ film of the Beat Generation classic wastes a strong cast, including Twilight‘s Kristen Stewart, in a needless tribute to ’50s wanderlust

    Surprise! The Lowest-Rated Show in Broadcast History Is Actually GreatSlate

    Adam Rose/FOX

    Glee Watch: NYADA, NYADA, NYADA

    Spoilers for the season finale of Glee below:

    One beef I often have with Glee episodes is that they move too fast, go in too many directions, try to cram in too much at once. You might say that about “Goodbye,” the season 3 finale, but in this case that approach seemed about right. It’s an episode about graduation, and graduation is something that, no matter how much you plan for and anticipate it, still goes too fast. Graduating is something you do, but in the moment it feels like something that happens to you, suddenly and all at once, like going over a waterfall.

  • annakat

    One needs only to watch the first 2 episodes of the first season to realize this is NOT a family show. Episode 1: the glee teacher (not Matt Morrison) feels up random beefcake singer and Rachel gets him fired. Former glee teacher begins selling pot to football coach. Mr. Schuester PLANTS said pot onto a student and blackmails him into joining the club.

    Episode 2 is really the kicker. Lea Michele’s Rachel smacks down abstinence-only education, they kind of make a mockery of celibacy, many references to premature ejaculation, then premature ejaculation actually happens, and a guidance counselor references fellatio by telling Rachel one day she’ll be glad she doesn’t have a gag reflex. And then there’s that “Push It” performance. Have these people listened to the lyrics? Did they not see the multiple simulated sex acts on stage during this performance? Did they notice Artie DRIBBLING the butts of 2 of the girls?

    And that’s just the first two episodes. From the beginning, this show has made it clear it’s not High School Musical. It’s Ryan freakin’ Murphy.

    Anyone who says Glee is a family show has clearly never actually paid it any attention.

  • beerbaron

    I’d probably watch Glee if it was a more family-friendly show. Not because I have kids or I’m a prude or anything, I just hate shows about teenagers having sex because nobody wanted to have sex with me in high school.

  • teresakopec

    I don’t object to the GQ pictures because I see Glee as a “family show.” I find them disturbing because they seem to be portraying high school students as an appropriate target of lust for grown men. I doubt any man looking at these pictures is going to be thinking, “Of course, she’s really 24!”

    I’d feel the same way if they took the women of Mad Men and dressed them up as teenage girls.

    Why not do pictures like Maxim did of Naya Rivera (Santana) which show her to be the hot 20 something she actually is? http://www.maxim.com/girls/girls-of-maxim/90798/my-first-time-naya-rivera.html

    PS Am I the only one who doesn’t know what “scissoring” is?

  • charlieromeobravo

    Can someone tell me why PTC thinks that Glee is marketing itself as a family show in the first place? “Masquerading as a family show” implies that they’re promising one thing but slyly delivering another. Do they think it’s implied because of their time slot or something.
    .
    And, like Poni pointed out above, how many of our impressionable youth are really reading GQ?

  • http://twitter.com/poniewozik James Poniewozik

    You nailed it. “Masquerading” is essential to the PTC’s rhetoric and its agenda, which is to reinstitute the “family hour” and restrict content across the board in prime time. For its members, keeping their own kids from content they don’t like is not enough; other parents must also be prevented from having the option to make a different choice.

    In order to make that argument, the PTC has to promote the idea that, essentially, choice is an illusion: that you may be free to choose to change the channel, but it’s too hard and people are constantly foiled by the deceptions of TV programmers. Therefore, the ONLY way to “protect” the children is to limit choices.

    That’s a transparently silly argument with Glee, as you say, but it is rhetorically necessary to them.

  • http://twitter.com/poniewozik James Poniewozik
  • mattn2

    My wife and I watch Glee, DVRed so that our kids can’t watch it. Just because it’s on at 7 doesn’t make it ok for kids.

  • teresakopec

    Thanks… clearly I’m too young for Glee too. :^)

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    PTC, Katie Couric, and every other news site reporting on this story, you just got played. Of course they wanted this response because what does that mean? More clicks to (and maybe purchases of) GQ and more viewers of Glee. Everybody knows sex sells and getting someone to complain about it? Well that sells even more!

  • olivececile

    I don’t watch Glee, but I think where this gets tricky is that it is actually a show about kids. Generally, shows about kids are at least partially aimed at kids. Freaks and Geeks and Popular might be exceptions, and maybe Glee is too, but I can imagine that distinction isn’t always crystal-clear to parents. Obviously YMMV on what’s “appropriate” for your kid, and I dislike PTC’s entire agenda here; however, there is something odd about a show about teens that wouldn’t be ok for teens to watch – we can sexualize them on the air because they’re played by adults, but we abhor that same thing when applied to our actual kids. Freaks and Geeks and Popular both dealt with issues some parents might object to (smoking pot, transgenderism), but Freaks and Geeks, at least, treated the kids on the show like kids and I think it would be very hard to make a reasonable case against it being family-friendly. Popular was Ryan Murphy too, right? I watched that as a kid and probably didn’t get all the jokes – not sure how similar it is to Glee.

    I’m rambling a bit, but I do wonder whether the casting of grown-ups to play teens makes writers and showrunners forget that they are still making a show about kids.

  • katie71483

    Let me be very clear: I do not support the PTC or any group that wants to limit what is aired on t.v. I do believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices about what they, and their children, view on t.v.

    The problem that I have is with the whole “what is your kid doing looking at GQ?” argument. These pictures aren’t just in the actual magazine – they’re all over the internet. Thus far, I’ve seen them, or links to them, on yahoo, msn, zap2it, popeater, and assorted other pop culture websites. Any 10 or 12-year-old with internet access can see these pictures, and I have my doubts that all of them are intellectually or emotionally capable of making the distinction that these are actresses in their 20s playing teenagers, or, for that matter, that the photo shoot was not of those characters but of the adult actresses. [sorry, that was quite possibly the most run-on sentence I've ever written]

  • http://twitter.com/poniewozik James Poniewozik

    Fair point. What I should have written is “…if your child is too young to understand the difference between a fictional character and the actor or actress who plays that character, I would submit that your child is too young to be reading the men’s magazine GQ–or, for that mater, watching Glee.”

    It seems to me that the role-model argument leans on the idea that the child is watching the show to begin with, which is on the parent. If people want to let their 10 or 12 year olds watch Glee, that’s their call of course, though I doubt I would myself. (My oldest is 9, so I can pretty confidently say there is no way I would let him in another year.)

  • Bemused

    That IS a fair point. Still, I thought “For starters, if your child is too young to understand the difference between a fictional character and the actor or actress who plays that character, I would submit that your child is too young to be reading the men’s magazine GQ” was a great line!

  • captainnoble

    James said, “Also: any “sexy pirate wenches” you see this Halloween? Not actually pirates.”

    Nooooooooo! I disbelieve! Why must you do this to me, James? Colors are gray. The sun is not so bright. My world has been shattered! I hope you’re happy.

  • katie71483

    I completely agree – if I had a tweenager, there’s no way they’d be watching Glee. As much as I enjoy it, I’ve been rather amazed by this wholesome image that so many people and/or media outlets seem to be trying to put on the show. Have they actually SEEN the show? The first comment above details pretty clearly why it is not, in fact, a family show.

  • tyrantking

    My question is where does Fox come in to this discussion. Because I think that Fox clearly marketed Glee as a family show last year. They led into it with American idol which they heavy handedly market as family friendly. AI is the crown jewel in their family friendly crown.

    It was apparent after the first two episodes of the second season of Glee, that the people behind Glee are serious about pushing their agenda. I disagree with enough of their agenda, that I will not be allowing my 12 and 10 year old to watch.

    As to last week’s episode, the casualness with which the show treats teenage sex is appalling. I may be talking myself out of watching anymore of Glee as I type. Which is really too bad because it is a really fun show when the agenda doesn’t take over.

  • The Hoobie

    Again, the following is not at all to indicate that I agree with the PTC in any way, but sometimes it can be hard to control what your kids see.

    I was watching the paintball episode of Community a few weeks ago when I thought our almost-five-year-old was safely otherwise occupied, then turned around to see that he’d been watching it too, for probably 5 or 10 minutes. Thankfully, the beginnings-of-sex scene seemed to go over his head, and the main thing he took from all the elaborate fighting (reinforced by the OK Go “This Too Shall Pass” video, which he loves) was how awesome it is when people get covered by paint.

    And this is a completely invidious comparison, but when the issue of Time Magazine arrived with the cover photo of the young Afghan woman who had been disfigured, I’m glad I saw it before our 5-year-old did. I completely agree with the editorial decision to put that photo on the cover, and had our son been even just a few years older, I would probably have been OK with him seeing it and talking about it with us. But I didn’t think he—or I?—was ready to have a conversation about the horrors of war at his age. So I regretfully tore off the cover before I took it in the house.

    Another thing I’m troubled by is the male-female double standard in the Glee GQ cover (ie, the guy gets to be clothed) and by my own response to it. I feel pretty confident that we can help our two sons navigate pop culture well during their tween years, but when it comes to my baby daughter, I often find myself wishing we were Amish.

    Again, though, I’m okay with navigating these gray areas by myself. I don’t need the PTC to do it for me.

  • The Hoobie

    Here’s the Fug Girls’ disgusted take on the cover: http://bit.ly/a9WMN8

  • jeia56

    What exactly do you mean by Glee’s “agenda”? Do you mean the issues and themes that Glee deals with, such as homosexuality and teenage sexuality? By using the term “agenda” you seem to imply that Glee is trying to convince us to think a certain way, which is simply untrue. Glee is a thought provoking show, but it certainly is not preachy.

    Of course Fox led into Glee with AI. American Idol is the most popular (ratings wise) show on television. Fox realized that they had a potential hit on their hands with Glee, and so they wanted to do everything they could to give it a chance to thrive.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but teenagers today do in fact view sex as a very casual thing. Maybe that’s the point Glee was making.

  • robocaller

    @James:

    Regardless of whether you see eye-to-eye with the PTC, I think the argument that they would limit people’s choices is disingenuous. The fight is entirely over limited, public airwaves. We have a free market, and if you don’t see a program you want to watch on broadcast TV, you can see it on cable TV, the Internet, or any other number of places. Nobody’s limiting anyone.

    Secondly, open discussion about what’s appropriate and what isn’t appropriate is just as important as open discussion about sexuality.The PTC has gotten things wrong, and will continue to get things wrong, but it doesn’t mean they’ll always get things wrong. Many liberals seem to agree the cover is inappropriate.

    Hyperbole about how bad the PTC is and how they’re taking away peoples choices sounds to me — as a moderate — just like conservatives complaining about Democrats being socialist tyrants.

  • http://ihurtiaminfashion.wordpress.com ihurtiaminfashion

    Had Agron not forgotten that GQ is not for gentlemen, perhaps now she would not have to insist that the photos do not represent who she is.

    http://www.ihurtiaminfashion.com

blog comments powered by Disqus